Larry. I applaud your courage and commitment. I’m in concurrence and agreement. My R history includes many campaigns, 3 appointments, 2 Senate confirmations, 2 transition teams. We allowed the R party to be hijacked by miscreants. To cleanse it they must be thrashed. Note Kevin MCarthy has reduced the Crazy 8 to 5. And he is not finished. It is possible to cleanse. Great job on the post. Keep going and stay safe. D. Kotok
Beautifully written and courageous. If I disagree with anything, it is the notion that the Republican party can be saved. 'The germ of corruption has entered its soul' and will not be easy to displace.
Here is a thought experiment for you Montana. I don't expect an answer, but it is interesting to cogitate on. If Señor Trump wins the election, would a Republican controlled senate confirm Ken Paxton as Attorney General?
Interesting. I would hope not, but as I understand matters, the filibuster rule does not apply to cabinet appointments. However, at present, there are still a few moderate Republican Senators (Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, perhaps others) who would object to Paxton.
Thanks, Larry. As usual, well written and argued. And we come precisely to the same conclusion, although I have the luxury of voting in CA which means that I will never even have to think about voting for Harris in a close election. I know that my vote will never matter and therefore I can use it for a pure signal: vote Repub down ballot but leave the presidential vote blank to demonstrate abhorrence of Trump/Vance. I, too, hope for divided control to minimize the damage from either side. Thank you, James Madison, for "checks and balances."
There is only scenario more frightening than Trump winning and that is a Democratic trifecta, following which the Dems attempt to implement irreversible things like SCOTUS packing, eliminating the fillibuster, statehood for DC/Puerto Rico, passing something like the Green New Deal, etc. If I foresaw this electoral outcome, and if I thought my presidential vote mattered, then I would vote for Trump. But what I would mostly do is head for Switzerland.
A Democratic trifecta could indeed be a perilous outcome, though I think even some Democrats would balk at taking such radical steps. It took a Donald Trump to make such an outcome even conceivable.
Unfortunately, I am not sure. As you know, it was Manchin and Sinema who blocked these efforts before. There were rumors of other Dems hiding behind these two in the knowledge that they could avoid a tough vote and still see the efforts fail. But it is hard to handicap their existence or how much spine these Dems would have absent the air cover from Manchin/Sinema (both of whom have now been driven out - which is a lesson in itself).
(Ironically, this is the same argument in favor of still voting for Repubs despite their votes on Jan 6: they knew that the coup would fail and therefore a base-pleasing vote was meaningless. However, I am more certain of the existence of these Repubs and their voting habits, as well as other blockers (eg., SCOTUS and Sec's of States like Raffensberger), than I am of Dems who would vote against the lunacy on their side of the aisle. After all, Trump attempted a coup and, with the exception of votes that Repubs knew were meaningless, nobody in any position of power - including Repubs - supported him. An attempt at madness by the Dems has been less tested.)
But, yes, of course Trump makes this much more likely, both by supporting idiots in down-ballot elections and by bringing out Dem voters and anesthetising them to the insanity on their side. Trump makes everyone dumber - on both sides.
One last point: One of the reasons why I am somewhat more relaxed about Trump 2.0 versus a Dem trifecta is that I think, as I think you do, that Trump is a lazy moron who, to quote the Brits, "couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery." Ditto the sycophant idiots that he will surround himself with. Conversely, Chuck Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jamie Raskin and Liz Warren actually know what they are doing. They are idiots in a different sense but they know which levers to pull.
Absolutely. I have made that point often and I believe that all the "adults in the room" will be absent this time. I have already baked this into my analysis. My pecking order would be:
- A Dem trifecta: the worst since there is a very good chance they would use this to do irreperable damage
- A Repub trifecta: the second worst because the Repubs in Congress have shown not much interest in "blocking" Trump's instincts and the most effective blockers (eg., McConnell, Sasse and Romney - but I still have some faith in the Tom Cottons and Chuck Grassleys of the world; I have zero faith in the House Republicans who are largely craven assholes) are no longer around
- Trump with the Dems controlling Congress: the third worst because the Dems will happily support Trump in most of his efforts to run up the national debt and pursue stupid economic policies like industrial policy. This is also a scenario where it is more difficult to rid the Repubs of Trumpism.
- Harris with the Repubs controlling Congress: the least worst because this protects the Constitution and because this is the scenario where the Repubs suddenly rediscover fiscal sanity. It is also the scenario with the greatest chance for the Repubs to get rid of Trumpism because this will confirm that The Idiot is the problem.
Note that none of these are good. But we can't have nice things in today's world, I'm afraid.
IMHO, you are one of few republicans, who understands, that loosing this particular election may actually be a victory for the party, because this way you gonna get rid of Trump for good and the potential damage may be smaller than election victory and Trump sitting 4 years in the White House.
Hopefully the next guy is going to be more civilized and will not team up with my most favorite sociopath.
Thanks. Big fan of yours by the way. You have the gift to be able to explain the "legal stuff" the way it looks damn easy. How about to make another podcast with Chris Irons about my/our most favorite sociopath?.
As an "outsider", I don't have any skin in this election game other than assumption that Democrats may not let Ukraine fall. Trump is surely able to repeat the "Afghanistan scenario" again.
Where the USA leads, the UK follows. We have a much more diverse political system than you do, with half a dozen parties represented in parliament, but our politicians are mesmerized by what gets people elected across the Pond, which augers badly for us.
A well reasoned effort Mr Fossi! Men and women of rational thought have watched the demise of the GOP(at their own hands) as the Dems publicly push quasi-centrist narratives while acting on their real agendas more quietly. Those in the comments who don't understand this aren't paying attention or choose to ignore the obvious mess the GOP leadership has allowed to occur on their watch. I hope the warmer weather and more favorable real eatate pricing in New Mexico is working well for you.
As I know you appreciate, I am by no means endorsing Harris. It is certainly the case that Biden ran as a centrist and then, when narrowly elected, decided he had a "mandate" to move to the far left. His policies were, in consequence, deeply unpopular with voters. Any Republican candidate but Donald Trump could have strolled to the White House this election year. I supported Asa Hutchinson and, when his bid became completely untenable, Nikki Haley. If Harris is elected, and makes the same mistake Biden made, 2028 could be a golden year for Republicans (assuming, of course, that Trumpism is finally discredited, and grown-ups can again run the party).
Btw, I will always love Montana. The move to New Mexico was because of my wife's health issues. There is, as you know, great natural beauty here, too, though of a different sort.
I suspect the tradeoff for warmer winters, better sunsets and the variety of Hatch chili infused cuisine makes New Mexico palatable. Many of our favorite restaurants in Denver, including Sushi Den use those chilis when in season as they are now. I hope her health is improving!
Spoken like a brainwashed mainstream propaganda puppet
And your thoughts on all the fraudulent votes, the flooding of the US with illegal aliens who must be allowed to vote, the unwillingness of judges to hear any cases brought to them regarding fraudulent voting?
Anyway, farewell little Pinocchio… let me go now and try and clear my brain from this verbal garbage you have polluted the world with …
Interesting piece, thank you. I suppose that to the extent I see the US President having more influence over foreign policy than domestic policy, I agree.
The picture painted of Dick Cheney seems to be unjustifiably lurid & cynical. Don't forget that his daughter, Liz Cheney, has been a ferocious critic of Trump for many years - long before anyone thought of Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate. And that criticism was & is founded on Trump's utter lack of integrity and deeply flawed character.
I'm glad you liked it. I thought it was smartly written and captures the essential truth; that the way of looking at this isn't left v right but establishment v nonestablishment. And the establishment being certain that Trump is unreliable to promote imperial interests.
That is also the reason I find myself unaffiliated with either major party.
There was the original schlock zombie movie that came out in 1968: Night Of The Living Dead. On the surface it's a silly halloween zombie film, but the subtext was that it was an allegory for Americans support of the Vietnam war. This is why the zombies are so carefully costumed as everyday Americans from all walks of life: suited businessmen, nurses, workmen of various kinds. But all of them, except the protagonists, have been converted in to flesh-eating ghouls.
I was very much against the Iraq war - the second one. I was against the first one as well. But during the second one was the time I woke up and realized that the entire country and its politics were just a cynical charade; that no matter what happens the system will forever be dragging us in to these wars, one after another, that politics will remain permanently poisoned - and the politicians very much like it that way. To a degree I thought that this was a partisan issue; after all politicians and opinion writers would show up on MSNBC decrying the war and Bushco.
But as soon as that was over and Obama was in place, they turned on a dime and became uncritical war enthusiasts. With Ukraine they've gone completely full circle; full throated monsters, repeating the silliest talking points and delusionally thinking there is some way for Ukraine to 'win' (Oh we only need to give them this latest wunderwaffe). MSNBC is a revolving door of former generals and spooks spouting easily disproved nonsense.
I follow the developments in Ukraine in minute detail - Military Summary channel on YouTube is a fantastic source of battlefield and political information. I follow Alexander Mercouris who among other things follows all the diplomatic meetings and analyzes the 'readout' from each side in them. For instance the Russian foreign minister arrives in India to discuss Ukraine with the Indian foreign minister, a readout is produced from each and areas of agreement and less-than-agreement are noted. So I know what's going on. And then I look at US media and it's a clown show of talking points suitable for children, making no account for reality.
And so because I don't believe in expanding the empire or starting wars unnecessarily, I find myself generally unable to tick at least the presidential box, because every time I've done that the person has started or prolonged wars in exactly the same way as the other party would have done; or even worse.
This time I'll probably vote D down ticket, but at the top of the ticket I'll likely write in Bernie Sanders.
I disagree entirely but I understand the notion. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 because I thought that George H.W. Bush was a mealy-mouthed compromiser and I wanted to repudiate his ilk. I've come to realize that top-of-ticket loss does not engender partisan soul-searching. There's really no "get conservative quick" scheme to take back the party.
Trump, if elected, would be done with the presidency. He can't run again and I think his glory bucket will be filled by being two term—and the only modern non-consecutive one at that. The real fight for the soul of the party comes when he's off the stage. I suspect it'll be between the JD Vance/Josh Hawley wing and the Rand Paul/Ron DeSantis faction, who I hope prevails.
If Trump loses, then he's going to continue his meddling and would likely run _again_ in 2028. The MAGA types will come out from their holes again and re-nominate him because they're sizable enough to affect the primaries.
Harris will be a disaster on every front. The legislative check is pretty thin nowadays: a Republican Congress would mostly be on the sidelines and a Democrat Congress would pass everything they can for Harris to sign. (Heaven help us if Harris has both houses on her side!)
We in the UK had a race of mainstream parties riven by very questionable practices and clear blue sky between their outlook as well as reality. Just under 30 per cent of all those entitled to vote went for 'anything but conservative'. In the first month that nice respectable former lawyer (Kings Council barrister no less) has become a vile dictator. We have no idea where this will end.
The UK conservative party is a wreck, which did not deserve any more time in power. Reconstruction is not going well. Green shoots are happening, but it could be years before there is a viable conservative movement which reflects policy for the real world.
I wish all in the USA the very best to select a President, Senate and House of Representatives that will serve the people. We in the UK did not succeed.
Agreed, as human beings go, Trump is the dregs. But the upcoming election has Trump's opponent offering more war, more taxes, more illegal immigration, more spending, more inflation, and more Government regulation - I could go on, but you get the point. While I am unsure what Trump stands for, I know it isn't that.
Much like you, I HATE Trump the person - but I recognize my hate must be tempered, and take a back seat to reality. The reality is, and I'm speaking as a registered Democrat, his policies & his decisions will be far less destructive to this country as a whole - and it is not even close.
Hate is a funny thing. Not only does it harden the heart and corrupt the soul...but it also distracts the mind and blinds us to reality. While you might be quick to claim you always temper your hate in favor of good judgment - I would ask - How's your Tesla Short doing?
IMO, your pure, unadulterated hate for Elon has clouded your judgment, and will continue to cost you some serious scratch until you either let that hate go - or take the time to understand exactly what the bull case is. Anyone who has read my Substack knows I'm no fan of Elon. As human beings go, he is right there next to Trump at the bottom of the barrel. But just because I dislike Elon the person, doesn't mean I can't be a Tesla Bull. I didn't like Steve Jobs either, but it didn't stop me from buying Apple. In like manner, just because I hate Trump the person, doesn't mean I won't be voting for him, because sometimes, an A-hole is the right man for the job.
1. I understand and respect why people can dislike, even detest, Donald Trump as a person, and yet still conclude that he is a better choice than Kamala Harris. I happen to disagree. Moreover, to me, voting for Trump for that reason is short-term thinking. I am more interested in seeing the GOP return to its traditional free markets, free people, small(er) government roots. The party needs to be purged of the Trump poison. It needs to cease being a cult, and focus again on ideas (and winning... Trump is a three-time loser, and I think he's going to be a four-time loser after Nov. 6). Plus, sorry, but the antics around Jan. 6, and the fake electors, is flat-out treasonous. I hope he dies in prison.
2. I haven't been short Tesla for years.
3. I read the links you posted. I'm amused that you think Tesla has any future as an AI company, even as Musk has been stripping all the AI opportunities from Tesla and importing them to his own private company.
You seem to be suffering from a severe case of TDS. You also seem to know an awful lot about a man I'd wager you have never met, based on the media portrayal of him. I encourage you to step away from your programmed animosity and take another look at the life and accomplishments of Donald J. Trump. I think you'll find plenty of reasons to prefer him to Kamala. And if not, what is the harm?
Hilarious! I first encountered Donald Trump in 1989 when he was busy screwing over his real estate partners and his banks. Many years later, I worked in Trump Tower and again met him personally on several occasions, as well as his sons.
Larry. I applaud your courage and commitment. I’m in concurrence and agreement. My R history includes many campaigns, 3 appointments, 2 Senate confirmations, 2 transition teams. We allowed the R party to be hijacked by miscreants. To cleanse it they must be thrashed. Note Kevin MCarthy has reduced the Crazy 8 to 5. And he is not finished. It is possible to cleanse. Great job on the post. Keep going and stay safe. D. Kotok
Beautifully written and courageous. If I disagree with anything, it is the notion that the Republican party can be saved. 'The germ of corruption has entered its soul' and will not be easy to displace.
It may take time. But, it's happened before. Think of the distance (temporally, temperamentally, & ideologically) between Nixon and Reagan.
Here is a thought experiment for you Montana. I don't expect an answer, but it is interesting to cogitate on. If Señor Trump wins the election, would a Republican controlled senate confirm Ken Paxton as Attorney General?
Interesting. I would hope not, but as I understand matters, the filibuster rule does not apply to cabinet appointments. However, at present, there are still a few moderate Republican Senators (Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, perhaps others) who would object to Paxton.
Thanks, Larry. As usual, well written and argued. And we come precisely to the same conclusion, although I have the luxury of voting in CA which means that I will never even have to think about voting for Harris in a close election. I know that my vote will never matter and therefore I can use it for a pure signal: vote Repub down ballot but leave the presidential vote blank to demonstrate abhorrence of Trump/Vance. I, too, hope for divided control to minimize the damage from either side. Thank you, James Madison, for "checks and balances."
There is only scenario more frightening than Trump winning and that is a Democratic trifecta, following which the Dems attempt to implement irreversible things like SCOTUS packing, eliminating the fillibuster, statehood for DC/Puerto Rico, passing something like the Green New Deal, etc. If I foresaw this electoral outcome, and if I thought my presidential vote mattered, then I would vote for Trump. But what I would mostly do is head for Switzerland.
A Democratic trifecta could indeed be a perilous outcome, though I think even some Democrats would balk at taking such radical steps. It took a Donald Trump to make such an outcome even conceivable.
Unfortunately, I am not sure. As you know, it was Manchin and Sinema who blocked these efforts before. There were rumors of other Dems hiding behind these two in the knowledge that they could avoid a tough vote and still see the efforts fail. But it is hard to handicap their existence or how much spine these Dems would have absent the air cover from Manchin/Sinema (both of whom have now been driven out - which is a lesson in itself).
(Ironically, this is the same argument in favor of still voting for Repubs despite their votes on Jan 6: they knew that the coup would fail and therefore a base-pleasing vote was meaningless. However, I am more certain of the existence of these Repubs and their voting habits, as well as other blockers (eg., SCOTUS and Sec's of States like Raffensberger), than I am of Dems who would vote against the lunacy on their side of the aisle. After all, Trump attempted a coup and, with the exception of votes that Repubs knew were meaningless, nobody in any position of power - including Repubs - supported him. An attempt at madness by the Dems has been less tested.)
But, yes, of course Trump makes this much more likely, both by supporting idiots in down-ballot elections and by bringing out Dem voters and anesthetising them to the insanity on their side. Trump makes everyone dumber - on both sides.
great points, all
One last point: One of the reasons why I am somewhat more relaxed about Trump 2.0 versus a Dem trifecta is that I think, as I think you do, that Trump is a lazy moron who, to quote the Brits, "couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery." Ditto the sycophant idiots that he will surround himself with. Conversely, Chuck Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jamie Raskin and Liz Warren actually know what they are doing. They are idiots in a different sense but they know which levers to pull.
OTOH, there is the worry that Trump's cabinet and advisors this time around would truly be the dregs.
Absolutely. I have made that point often and I believe that all the "adults in the room" will be absent this time. I have already baked this into my analysis. My pecking order would be:
- A Dem trifecta: the worst since there is a very good chance they would use this to do irreperable damage
- A Repub trifecta: the second worst because the Repubs in Congress have shown not much interest in "blocking" Trump's instincts and the most effective blockers (eg., McConnell, Sasse and Romney - but I still have some faith in the Tom Cottons and Chuck Grassleys of the world; I have zero faith in the House Republicans who are largely craven assholes) are no longer around
- Trump with the Dems controlling Congress: the third worst because the Dems will happily support Trump in most of his efforts to run up the national debt and pursue stupid economic policies like industrial policy. This is also a scenario where it is more difficult to rid the Repubs of Trumpism.
- Harris with the Repubs controlling Congress: the least worst because this protects the Constitution and because this is the scenario where the Repubs suddenly rediscover fiscal sanity. It is also the scenario with the greatest chance for the Repubs to get rid of Trumpism because this will confirm that The Idiot is the problem.
Note that none of these are good. But we can't have nice things in today's world, I'm afraid.
Let me be the first in the peanut gallery to NOT call you an idiot or stupid.
While I don’t agree with you, your thoughtfulness doesn’t deserve the hand waving dismissals I fear are coming down the pike.
Thanks, Keenan. Politics can make people a bit unhinged sometimes. In a better world, it will become a smaller part of what occupies our thinking.
Great read and comment section. Thanks for writing!
Thanks, Paul.
IMHO, you are one of few republicans, who understands, that loosing this particular election may actually be a victory for the party, because this way you gonna get rid of Trump for good and the potential damage may be smaller than election victory and Trump sitting 4 years in the White House.
Hopefully the next guy is going to be more civilized and will not team up with my most favorite sociopath.
Thanks, Pavel.
If Trump wins, I fear there may well be no more Republican party to save.
Thanks. Big fan of yours by the way. You have the gift to be able to explain the "legal stuff" the way it looks damn easy. How about to make another podcast with Chris Irons about my/our most favorite sociopath?.
As an "outsider", I don't have any skin in this election game other than assumption that Democrats may not let Ukraine fall. Trump is surely able to repeat the "Afghanistan scenario" again.
Bravissimo, Lorenzo!!!
grazie, amico mio
Where the USA leads, the UK follows. We have a much more diverse political system than you do, with half a dozen parties represented in parliament, but our politicians are mesmerized by what gets people elected across the Pond, which augers badly for us.
A well reasoned effort Mr Fossi! Men and women of rational thought have watched the demise of the GOP(at their own hands) as the Dems publicly push quasi-centrist narratives while acting on their real agendas more quietly. Those in the comments who don't understand this aren't paying attention or choose to ignore the obvious mess the GOP leadership has allowed to occur on their watch. I hope the warmer weather and more favorable real eatate pricing in New Mexico is working well for you.
Thanks, K S.
As I know you appreciate, I am by no means endorsing Harris. It is certainly the case that Biden ran as a centrist and then, when narrowly elected, decided he had a "mandate" to move to the far left. His policies were, in consequence, deeply unpopular with voters. Any Republican candidate but Donald Trump could have strolled to the White House this election year. I supported Asa Hutchinson and, when his bid became completely untenable, Nikki Haley. If Harris is elected, and makes the same mistake Biden made, 2028 could be a golden year for Republicans (assuming, of course, that Trumpism is finally discredited, and grown-ups can again run the party).
Btw, I will always love Montana. The move to New Mexico was because of my wife's health issues. There is, as you know, great natural beauty here, too, though of a different sort.
I suspect the tradeoff for warmer winters, better sunsets and the variety of Hatch chili infused cuisine makes New Mexico palatable. Many of our favorite restaurants in Denver, including Sushi Den use those chilis when in season as they are now. I hope her health is improving!
If you think Jan 6 was an jnsurrection you’ve been brainwashed. I want nothing to do with you.
farewell!
Spoken like a brainwashed mainstream propaganda puppet
And your thoughts on all the fraudulent votes, the flooding of the US with illegal aliens who must be allowed to vote, the unwillingness of judges to hear any cases brought to them regarding fraudulent voting?
Anyway, farewell little Pinocchio… let me go now and try and clear my brain from this verbal garbage you have polluted the world with …
Farewell, pazzoide. :-)
Mr. Fossi, please enjoy this article:
https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/why-would-dick-cheney-endorse-kamala?r=ef2z&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Interesting piece, thank you. I suppose that to the extent I see the US President having more influence over foreign policy than domestic policy, I agree.
The picture painted of Dick Cheney seems to be unjustifiably lurid & cynical. Don't forget that his daughter, Liz Cheney, has been a ferocious critic of Trump for many years - long before anyone thought of Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate. And that criticism was & is founded on Trump's utter lack of integrity and deeply flawed character.
I'm glad you liked it. I thought it was smartly written and captures the essential truth; that the way of looking at this isn't left v right but establishment v nonestablishment. And the establishment being certain that Trump is unreliable to promote imperial interests.
That is also the reason I find myself unaffiliated with either major party.
There was the original schlock zombie movie that came out in 1968: Night Of The Living Dead. On the surface it's a silly halloween zombie film, but the subtext was that it was an allegory for Americans support of the Vietnam war. This is why the zombies are so carefully costumed as everyday Americans from all walks of life: suited businessmen, nurses, workmen of various kinds. But all of them, except the protagonists, have been converted in to flesh-eating ghouls.
I was very much against the Iraq war - the second one. I was against the first one as well. But during the second one was the time I woke up and realized that the entire country and its politics were just a cynical charade; that no matter what happens the system will forever be dragging us in to these wars, one after another, that politics will remain permanently poisoned - and the politicians very much like it that way. To a degree I thought that this was a partisan issue; after all politicians and opinion writers would show up on MSNBC decrying the war and Bushco.
But as soon as that was over and Obama was in place, they turned on a dime and became uncritical war enthusiasts. With Ukraine they've gone completely full circle; full throated monsters, repeating the silliest talking points and delusionally thinking there is some way for Ukraine to 'win' (Oh we only need to give them this latest wunderwaffe). MSNBC is a revolving door of former generals and spooks spouting easily disproved nonsense.
I follow the developments in Ukraine in minute detail - Military Summary channel on YouTube is a fantastic source of battlefield and political information. I follow Alexander Mercouris who among other things follows all the diplomatic meetings and analyzes the 'readout' from each side in them. For instance the Russian foreign minister arrives in India to discuss Ukraine with the Indian foreign minister, a readout is produced from each and areas of agreement and less-than-agreement are noted. So I know what's going on. And then I look at US media and it's a clown show of talking points suitable for children, making no account for reality.
And so because I don't believe in expanding the empire or starting wars unnecessarily, I find myself generally unable to tick at least the presidential box, because every time I've done that the person has started or prolonged wars in exactly the same way as the other party would have done; or even worse.
This time I'll probably vote D down ticket, but at the top of the ticket I'll likely write in Bernie Sanders.
I’m still baffled why you didn’t even mention RFKjr.
Why should I have mentioned him?
I disagree entirely but I understand the notion. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 because I thought that George H.W. Bush was a mealy-mouthed compromiser and I wanted to repudiate his ilk. I've come to realize that top-of-ticket loss does not engender partisan soul-searching. There's really no "get conservative quick" scheme to take back the party.
Trump, if elected, would be done with the presidency. He can't run again and I think his glory bucket will be filled by being two term—and the only modern non-consecutive one at that. The real fight for the soul of the party comes when he's off the stage. I suspect it'll be between the JD Vance/Josh Hawley wing and the Rand Paul/Ron DeSantis faction, who I hope prevails.
If Trump loses, then he's going to continue his meddling and would likely run _again_ in 2028. The MAGA types will come out from their holes again and re-nominate him because they're sizable enough to affect the primaries.
Harris will be a disaster on every front. The legislative check is pretty thin nowadays: a Republican Congress would mostly be on the sidelines and a Democrat Congress would pass everything they can for Harris to sign. (Heaven help us if Harris has both houses on her side!)
I appreciate the thoughtful comment.
I'm certainly with you on what happens if the Democrats control both chambers in a Harris Administration.
If Trump loses, isn't there a decent chance he'll find himself in prison?
We in the UK had a race of mainstream parties riven by very questionable practices and clear blue sky between their outlook as well as reality. Just under 30 per cent of all those entitled to vote went for 'anything but conservative'. In the first month that nice respectable former lawyer (Kings Council barrister no less) has become a vile dictator. We have no idea where this will end.
The UK conservative party is a wreck, which did not deserve any more time in power. Reconstruction is not going well. Green shoots are happening, but it could be years before there is a viable conservative movement which reflects policy for the real world.
I wish all in the USA the very best to select a President, Senate and House of Representatives that will serve the people. We in the UK did not succeed.
Agreed, as human beings go, Trump is the dregs. But the upcoming election has Trump's opponent offering more war, more taxes, more illegal immigration, more spending, more inflation, and more Government regulation - I could go on, but you get the point. While I am unsure what Trump stands for, I know it isn't that.
Much like you, I HATE Trump the person - but I recognize my hate must be tempered, and take a back seat to reality. The reality is, and I'm speaking as a registered Democrat, his policies & his decisions will be far less destructive to this country as a whole - and it is not even close.
Hate is a funny thing. Not only does it harden the heart and corrupt the soul...but it also distracts the mind and blinds us to reality. While you might be quick to claim you always temper your hate in favor of good judgment - I would ask - How's your Tesla Short doing?
IMO, your pure, unadulterated hate for Elon has clouded your judgment, and will continue to cost you some serious scratch until you either let that hate go - or take the time to understand exactly what the bull case is. Anyone who has read my Substack knows I'm no fan of Elon. As human beings go, he is right there next to Trump at the bottom of the barrel. But just because I dislike Elon the person, doesn't mean I can't be a Tesla Bull. I didn't like Steve Jobs either, but it didn't stop me from buying Apple. In like manner, just because I hate Trump the person, doesn't mean I won't be voting for him, because sometimes, an A-hole is the right man for the job.
https://bagholder.substack.com/p/image-v-results .... or...
https://bagholder.substack.com/p/chasing-asymmetry-with-tesla
1. I understand and respect why people can dislike, even detest, Donald Trump as a person, and yet still conclude that he is a better choice than Kamala Harris. I happen to disagree. Moreover, to me, voting for Trump for that reason is short-term thinking. I am more interested in seeing the GOP return to its traditional free markets, free people, small(er) government roots. The party needs to be purged of the Trump poison. It needs to cease being a cult, and focus again on ideas (and winning... Trump is a three-time loser, and I think he's going to be a four-time loser after Nov. 6). Plus, sorry, but the antics around Jan. 6, and the fake electors, is flat-out treasonous. I hope he dies in prison.
2. I haven't been short Tesla for years.
3. I read the links you posted. I'm amused that you think Tesla has any future as an AI company, even as Musk has been stripping all the AI opportunities from Tesla and importing them to his own private company.
You seem to be suffering from a severe case of TDS. You also seem to know an awful lot about a man I'd wager you have never met, based on the media portrayal of him. I encourage you to step away from your programmed animosity and take another look at the life and accomplishments of Donald J. Trump. I think you'll find plenty of reasons to prefer him to Kamala. And if not, what is the harm?
Hilarious! I first encountered Donald Trump in 1989 when he was busy screwing over his real estate partners and his banks. Many years later, I worked in Trump Tower and again met him personally on several occasions, as well as his sons.
It would be very interesting to read some anecdotes about his and his sons.
Well then you are stuck with a well-formed opinion. It'll be ok when he is president again next year - and then, guess what! He'll be gone.